The health of people's body and mind is powerfully conditioned by social factors that affect their social identity. Consistent with this notion, there is a growing interest in the way that group memberships (and the social identities derived from belonging to these groups) affect health and well‐being. To the extent that group memberships provide individuals with meaning, support, and agency (i.e., a positive sense of social identity), health is positively impacted, constituting a “social cure”. However, when group membership is not associated with these positive psychological resources or when social identity is challenged in other ways (e.g., group membership is devalued or stigmatised), social identities may become a curse, threatening and potentially harming health and well‐being. In a range of social contexts, novel examples of these processes are brought together in the contributions to this special issue. In this editorial, we link the findings from these contributions to a set of hypotheses that emerge from the social identity approach to highlight the nuanced ways in which social identity processes are key to understanding health and well‐being (Haslam, Jetten, Cruwys, Dingle, & Haslam, forthcoming). The contributions in this special issue point to fruitful ways to develop the social cure agenda. Together they highlight the importance of social identities as powerful psychological resources that have an important role to play in managing and improving health.

No abstract

We provide a meta-analytical review examining two decades of work on the relationship between individuals' social identifications and health in organizations (102 effect sizes, k = 58, N = 19,799). Results reveal a mean-weighted positive association between organizational identification and health ( r = .21, T = .14). Analysis identified a positive relationship for both workgroup ( r = .21) and organizational identification ( r = .21), and in studies using longitudinal/experimental ( r = .13) and cross-sectional designs ( r = .22). The relationship is stronger (a) for indicators of the presence of well-being ( r = .27) than absence of stress ( r = .18), (b) for psychological ( r = .23) than physical health ( r = .16), (c) to the extent that identification is shared among group members, and (d) as the proportion of female participants in a sample decreases. Overall, results indicate that social identifications in organizations are positively associated with health but that there is also substantial variation in effect size strength. We discuss implications for theory and practice and outline a roadmap for future research.

Recent theorizing applying the social identity approach to leadership proposes a four‐dimensional model of identity leadership that centres on leaders’ management of a shared sense of ‘we’ and ‘us’. This research validates a scale assessing this model – the Identity Leadership Inventory (ILI). We present results from an international project with data from all six continents and from more than 20 countries/regions with 5,290 participants. The ILI was translated (using back‐translation methods) into 13 different languages (available in the Appendix ) and used along with measures of other leadership constructs (i.e., leader–member exchange [LMX], transformational leadership, and authentic leadership) as well as employee attitudes and (self‐reported) behaviours – namely identification, trust in the leader, job satisfaction, innovative work behaviour, organizational citizenship behaviour, and burnout. Results provide consistent support for the construct, discriminant, and criterion validity of the ILI across countries. We show that the four dimensions of identity leadership are distinguishable and that they relate to important work‐related attitudes and behaviours above and beyond other leadership constructs. Finally, we also validate a short form of the ILI, noting that is likely to have particular utility in applied contexts. Practitioner points The Identity Leadership Inventory (ILI) has a consistent factor structure and high predictive value across 20 countries and can thus be used to assess a leader's ability to manage (team and organizational) identities in a range of national and cultural contexts. Identity leadership as perceived by employees is uniquely related to important indicators of leadership effectiveness including employees’ relationship to their team (identification and perceived team support), well‐being (job satisfaction and reduced burnout), and performance (citizenship and innovative behaviour at work). The ILI can be used in practical settings to assess and develop leadership, for instance, in 360‐degree feedback systems. The short form of the ILI is also a valid assessment of identity leadership, and this is likely to be useful in a range of applied contexts (e.g., those where there is a premium on cost and time or when comparing multiple leaders or multiple time points).

The present study examined the impact of athlete leaders' perceived confidence on their teammates' confidence and performance. Male basketball players (N = 102) participated in groups of 4. To manipulate leaders' team confidence, the appointed athlete leader of each newly formed basketball team (a confederate) expressed either high or low team confidence. The results revealed an effect of team confidence contagion such that team members had greater team confidence when the leader expressed high (rather than low) confidence in the team's success. Second, the present study sought to explain the mechanisms through which this contagion occurs. In line with the social identity approach to leadership, structural equation modeling demonstrated that this effect was partially mediated by team members' increased team identification. Third, findings indicated that when leaders expressed high team confidence, team members' performance increased during the test, but when leaders expressed low confidence, team members' performance decreased. Athlete leaders thus have the capacity to shape team members' confidence--and hence their performance--in both positive and negative ways. In particular, by showing that they believe in "our team," leaders are able not only to make "us" a psychological reality, but also to transform "us" into an effective operational unit.